Subtitles and Transcript

Guy-Philippe Goldstein

0:11
Good afternoon.If you have followeddiplomatic news in the past weeks,you may have heard of a kind of crisisbetween China and the U.S.regarding cyberattacksagainst the American company Google.Many things have been said about this.Some people have called a cyberwarwhat may actually bejust a spy operation --and obviously, a quite mishandled one.However, this episode revealsthe growing anxiety in the Western worldregarding these emerging cyber weapons.

0:42
It so happens that these weapons are dangerous.They're of a new nature:they could lead the worldinto a digital conflictthat could turn into an armed struggle.These virtual weapons can also destroy the physical world.In 1982, in the middle of the Cold Warin Soviet Siberia,a pipeline exploded with a burst of 3 kilotons,the equivalent of a fourth of the Hiroshima bomb.Now we know today -- this was revealedby Thomas Reed,Ronald Reagan's former U.S. Air Force Secretary --this explosion was actually the resultof a CIA sabotage operation,in which they had managedto infiltrate the IT management systemsof that pipeline.

1:25
More recently, the U.S. government revealedthat in September 2008, more than 3 million peoplein the state of Espirito Santo in Brazilwere plunged into darkness,victims of a blackmail operation from cyber pirates.Even more worrying for the Americans,in December 2008 the holiest of holies,the IT systems of CENTCOM,the central commandmanaging the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,may have been infiltrated by hackerswho used these:plain but infected USB keys.And with these keys, they may have been ableto get inside CENTCOM's systems,to see and hear everything,and maybe even infect some of them.As a result, the Americans take the threat very seriously.I'll quote General James Cartwright,Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,who says in a report to Congressthat cyberattacks could be as powerful asweapons of mass destruction.Moreover, the Americans have decidedto spend over 30 billion dollarsin the next five yearsto build up their cyberwar capabilities.

2:30
And across the world today, we seea sort of cyber arms race,with cyberwar unitsbuilt up by countries like North Koreaor even Iran.Yet, what you'll never hearfrom spokespeoplefrom the Pentagon or the French Department of Defenceis that the question isn't reallywho's the enemy, but actuallythe very nature of cyber weapons.And to understand why, we must look at how,through the ages, military technologieshave maintained or destroyedworld peace.For example,if we'd had TEDxParis350 years ago,we would have talked about the military innovation of the day --the massive Vauban-style fortifications --and we could have predicteda period of stability in the world or in Europe.which was indeed the case in Europebetween 1650 and 1750.

3:25
Similarly, if we'd had this talk30 or 40 years ago, we would have seenhow the rise of nuclear weapons,and the threat of mutually assured destruction they imply,prevents a direct fight between the two superpowers.However, if we'd had this talk 60 years ago,we would have seen how the emergenceof new aircraft and tank technologies,which give the advantage to the attacker,make the Blitzkrieg doctrine very credibleand thus create the possibility of war in Europe.So military technologiescan influence the course of the world,can make or break world peace --and there lies the issue with cyber weapons.

4:06
The first issue:Imagine a potential enemy announcingthey're building a cyberwar unit,but only for their country's defense.Okay, but what distinguishes itfrom an offensive unit?It gets even more complicatedwhen the doctrines of use become ambiguous.Just 3 years ago, both the U.S. and Francewere saying they were investing militarily in cyberspace,strictly to defend their IT systems.But today both countries saythe best defense is to attack.And so, they're joining China,whose doctrine of use for 15 years has beenboth defensive and offensive.

4:51
The second issue:Your country could be under cyberattackwith entire regions plunged into total darkness,and you may not even knowwho's attacking you.Cyber weapons have this peculiar feature:they can be usedwithout leaving traces.This gives a tremendous advantage to the attacker,because the defenderdoesn't know who to fight back against.And if the defender retaliates against the wrong adversary,they risk making one more enemyand ending up diplomatically isolated.This issue isn't just theoretical.

5:24
In May 2007, Estonia was the victim of cyberattacks,that damaged its communicationand banking systems.Estonia accused Russia.But NATO, though it defends Estonia,reacted very prudently. Why?Because NATO couldn't be 100% surethat the Kremlin was indeed behind these attacks.So to sum up, on the one hand,when a possible enemy announcesthey're building a cyberwar unit,you don't know whether it's for attackor defense.On the other hand,we know that these weapons give an advantage to attacking.

5:59
In a major article published in 1978,Professor Robert Jervis of Columbia University in New Yorkdescribed a model to understandhow conflicts could arise.In this context,when you don't know if the potential enemyis preparing for defense or attack,and if the weapons give an advantage to attacking,then this environment ismost likely to spark a conflict.This is the environment that's being createdby cyber weapons today,and historically it was the environment in Europeat the onset of World War I.So cyber weaponsare dangerous by nature,but in addition, they're emergingin a much more unstable environment.

6:44
If you remember the Cold War,it was a very hard game,but a stable one played only by two players,which allowed for some coordination between the two superpowers.Today we're moving to a multipolar worldin which coordination is much more complicated,as we have seen at Copenhagen.And this coordination may become even trickierwith the introduction of cyber weapons.Why? Because no nationknows for sure whether its neighboris about to attack.So nations may live under the threatof what Nobel Prize winner Thomas Schellingcalled the "reciprocal fear of surprise attack,"as I don't know if my neighboris about to attack me or not --I may never know --so I might take the upper handand attack first.

7:33
Just last week,in a New York Times article dated January 26, 2010,it was revealed for the first time thatofficials at the National Security Agencywere considering the possibility of preemptive attacksin cases where the U.S. was aboutto be cyberattacked.And these preemptive attacksmight not just remainin cyberspace.In May 2009, General Kevin Chilton,commander of the U.S. nuclear forces,stated that in the event of cyberattacks against the U.S.,all options would be on the table.

8:17
Cyber weapons do not replaceconventional or nuclear weapons --they just add a new layer to the existing system of terror.But in doing so, they also add their own riskof triggering a conflict --as we've just seen, a very important risk --and a risk we may have to confrontwith a collective security solutionwhich includes all of us:European allies, NATO members,our American friends and allies,our other Western allies,and maybe, by forcing their hand a little,our Russian and Chinese partners.

8:51
The information technologiesJoël de Rosnay was talking about,which were historically born from military research,are today on the verge of developingan offensive capability of destruction,which could tomorrow, if we're not careful,completely destroy world peace.